Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
Summary
This is the Final Office action based on the 17/680195 response filed 11/11/2025.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-25 are pending.
Claims 1, 4-5, & 7-18 have been fully considered and examined as shown below.
Claims 19-25 are withdrawn.
Claims 2-3 & 6 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 10 & 16-18 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by LIN in US 20200315504 in view of DUSTIN in US 20190048223 and further in view of GRYTHE in Diffusion rates and the role of diffusion in solid propellant rocket motor adhesion.
With respect to Claim 1, LIN teaches of a method of a device/system, comprising a first electrode electrically coupled to a second electrode, wherein a material layer is disposed over the first electrode and the second electrode (paragraph 0007, 0024, 0027, 0044-0045, 0060-0063);
Wherein, an AC voltage potential is applied to the first electrode in a frequency sweep mode and an output AC impedance current resulting from the application of the voltage (paragraph 0005, abstract);
The electrode where the voltage and a second electrode are coated in a material layer (paragraph 0007, 0027) and overall the device/system has a layered structure including as shown on Figure 6: Base layer (102), sensor (100), conductive layer (104), polymer coatings in a protective layer (106), an analyte sensing layer (110), adhesion promoter layer (114), and analyte modulating layer (112) (see paragraphs 0050-0054).
LIN teaches that the polymer coating protective layer (106) can be made of silicone compounds, polyimides, biocompatible solder masks, epoxy acrylate copolymers (paragraph 0050, 0068),
And that the analyte sensing layer (110) that is contained in the coating (coating protective layer 106), through broadest reasonable interpretation, can be comprise and enzyme such as glucose oxidase, which can be considered a “chemical active,” as enzymes are active and layer 110 is “contained in,” layer 106 (paragraph 0027, 0045), and that analyte modulating later (112)--- which selectively limits the diffusion of glucose or other chemical therethrough (paragraphs 0027, 0028, 0044-0045, 0066).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
LIN teaches that the device/system of LIN is used to measure the material properties of the material (abstract). LIN does not teach of the polymer layer being biphasic specifically with the claimed diffusivity.
DUSTIN is used to remedy this and more specifically teaches of polymer coatings for substrates (paragraph 0003, 0039, 0043), which are multiphase and applied onto the substrates (abstract, paragraph 0039).
DUSTIN more specifically teaches that the multiphase polymer composition comprises a first and second polymer material that are microphase-separated on a microphase-separation length scale from about 0.1 to about 500 µm (so a bi-phasic material), wherein the composition comprises first solid functional particles selectively dispersed within said first polymer material (paragraph 0008, Claim 1). DUSTIN further teaches that the first solid functional particles may include oxidizing agents, reducing agents, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0018). The first and second polymer materials are independently selected from the group consisting of polyesters, polyethers, polyacrylates, polymethacrylates, polyepoxides, polysiloxanes, cellulosic polymers, and combinations thereof (paragraph 0022). Polyesters and polyethers include poly (ethylene glycol) (paragraph 0023).
DUSTIN teaches that the first solid functional polymer particles are capable of reacting with the second polymer material, such that they are transported from the first polymer material to the second polymer material (paragraphs 0103-0104)--- therefor reading on the instantly claimed (mobility of a chemical active in the coating).
DUSTIN teaches that the two phases may be one discrete solid phase in a continuous solid phase, two continuous solid phases, or two discrete phases in a third continuous solid phase (paragraph 0081, 0127, 0132).
DUSTIN further teaches of the continuous matrix of the first and second polymer including a reactive species (chemical active as instantly claimed), within and/or between the continuous matrix inclusions which can be isocyanate species and an alcohol or amine with functionality of 2 or greater. An isocyanate species may be selected from the group consisting of 4,4′-methylenebis (cyclohexyl isocyanate), hexamethylene diisocyanate, cycloalkyl-based diisocyanates, tolylene-2,4-diisocyanate, 4,4′-methylenebis (phenyl isocyanate), isophorone diisocyanate, and combinations or derivatives thereof. In these or other embodiments, the reactive species includes an epoxy and an alcohol, amine, or thiol with functionality of 2 or greater (paragraph 0026, 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the biphasic material and chemical active of DUSTIN in the system of LIN due to the need in the art for better multifunctional coating materials with reactive particles that cannot normally be mixed or associated with one another and due to the advantage that these coatings can have for maintaining mechanical integrity of coatings such as for corrosion resistance (DUSTIN, paragraph 0006).
DUSTIN teaches of the chemical active being versions of isocyanates, but does not call out the claimed diffusivity of 10 -18 m2/s to 10 -9 m2/s at 25 degrees Celsius. This is a material property of the isocyanate compounds, however if this is not apparent to one of ordinary skill, GRYTHE is used to remedy this.
GRYTHE teaches that the diffusion coefficients for isocyanates vary between 10 -17 m2/s to 10 -11m2/s (abstract), which falls in the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a compounds (isocyanates) as done in DUSTIN, with the diffusivity evidenced by GRYTHE and to adjust it to a level within the claimed range since the diffusion coefficients/diffusivity of specific compounds like isocyanates are known to have the advantage of decreasing with increasing particle filling at a level which is preditable (GRYTHE, abstract).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the diffusivity in the MACKAY to obtain the desired diffusivity (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 4, LIN teaches of the invention as shown above, but does not teach of the biphasic material. DUSTIN teaches of a multiphase polymer composition comprises a first and second polymer material that are microphase-separated on a microphase-separation length scale from about 0.1 to about 500 µm (500 um= .5 millimeter, so this falls within the claimed range) (so a bi-phasic material), wherein the composition comprises first solid functional particles selectively dispersed within said first polymer material (paragraph 0008, Claim 1). See reason for combination from Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 5, LIN teaches of the invention as shown above, but does not teach of the biphasic material. DUSTIN teaches of the biphasic polymer material and further that any inclusions other than the polymeric materials such as the reactive species, or solvents can be at 10 wt % to about 99 wt % (paragraph 0204, 0026, 0027), so this falls within the claimed range. See reason for combination from Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 7, LIN teaches of the invention as shown above, but does not teach of the biphasic material with chemical active. DUSTIN teaches of the biphasic polymer material and further that any inclusions other than the polymeric materials such as the reactive species, and of inclusion of dissolving solvents can be at 10 wt % to about 99 wt % (paragraph 0204, 0026, 0027), so this falls within the claimed range. See reason for combination from Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 8, LIN teaches of the invention as shown above, but does not teach of the biphasic material with chemical active. DUSTIN teaches of the biphasic polymer material and further of chemical active inclusions which can be isocyanate species may be selected from the group consisting of 4,4′-methylenebis (cyclohexyl isocyanate), hexamethylene diisocyanate, cycloalkyl-based diisocyanates, tolylene-2,4-diisocyanate, 4,4′-methylenebis (phenyl isocyanate), isophorone diisocyanate, and combinations or derivatives thereof. In other embodiments, the reactive species includes an epoxy and an alcohol, amine, or thiol with functionality of 2 or greater (paragraph 0026, 0051) and further that they can include things like acids (paragraph 0044). See reason for combination from Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 10, LIN teaches that the sensor comprises a first electrode electronically coupled to second electrode. This method comprises applying a fixed alternating current voltage in a frequency sweep mode is applied to the first electrode in a sensor architecture where the material layer (with insulating layer) is disposed over the first electrode and the second electrode; and the alternating current voltage. The method further comprises measuring an output current that results from the application of the alternating current voltage, and then using the output current measured observe or infer impedance characteristics of the material layer disposed over the first electrode and the second electrode (this means there is a region of coating between the electrodes) (paragraph 0027).
With respect to Claim 16, LIN teaches of a meter applying AC voltage/impedance (AC waveform) to the electrodes (paragraph 0008).
With respect to Claim 17, LIN teaches of a meter applying AC voltage/impedance (AC waveform) to the electrodes and that the voltage is applied and sensed at multiple frequencies which includes single frequencies (abstract, paragraph 0005-0008).
With respect to Claim 18, LIN teaches of a meter applying AC voltage/impedance (AC waveform) to the electrodes and that the voltage is applied and sensed at multiple frequencies which includes single frequencies (abstract, paragraph 0005-0008).
Claim 9 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by LIN in US 20200315504 in view of DUSTIN in US 2019004822 and further in view of GRYTHE in Diffusion rates and the role of diffusion in solid propellant rocket motor adhesion and further in view of GREENE in US 20100036230.
With respect to Claim 9, LIN and DUSTIN and GRYTHE teaches of the above, but does not teach of the claimed chemical active which is a quaternary ammonium salt as claimed in Claim 9. GREENE is used to remedy this and teaches of Sample 2 including acrylic adhesive including 20% by weight of quaternary ammonium salt (chemical active). The acrylic adhesive and salt exhibited a balanced inter-molecular attraction to themselves and each other such that the salt remained suspended within the acrylic adhesive without blooming or crystallizing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a mobile coating comprised of two coatings interacting together and specifically a quaternary ammonium salt as done in GREENE in the system and methods of LIN and DUSTIN and GRYTHE due to the advantage this has for functionalizing the components coated on while maintaining adhesive strength (paragraph 0078).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by LIN in US 20200315504 in view of DUSTIN in US 20190048223 and further in view of GRYTHE in Diffusion rates and the role of diffusion in solid propellant rocket motor adhesion and further in view of MACKAY in US 20180059101.
With respect to Claim 11, LIN and DUSTIN and GRYTHE teach of the claimed invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not teach of the claimed specifics of the electrode/coatings arrangement.
MACKAY is used to remedy this and teaches a system for an impedance-based molecular sensing, the system comprising: a coating disposed on a substrate (abstract, paragraph 0126, 0125);
The coating of the substrate extends between two electrodes (paragraph 0126). Molecular recognition elements (MRE/s) are bound to the substrate or the coating of the substrate (paragraph 0126) (these MREs can be considered the “chemical active,” in the coating and can be considered to be ionically conductive- as claimed through broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI)).
MACKAY teaches that the MREs in the coating can be polymers (paragraph 0139). Further- MACKAY teaches that the substrate can be modified/coated with a layer or layers of chemically bound entities such as polymers (paragraph 0174).
MACKAY further teaches of the electrodes (704 & 706) with one being disposed at or near and external surface of the coating and the other is distally disposed at the other/opposite end of the coating (See Figure 7, paragraph 0147, 0126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to space the electrodes apart as is done in MACKAY in the devices of LIN and DUSTIN and GRYTHE due to the advantage this gives the device for a reaction or detection to occur between the electrodes as is done in MACAKAY to determine the presence of analyte or target (MACKAY, paragraph 0126).
With respect to Claim 12, LIN and DUSTIN teach of the claimed invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not teach of the claimed specifics of the electrode/coatings arrangement.
MACKAY teaches of the electrodes (704 & 706) both being “at least partially embedded,” or “pressed against an external surface,” in/on the coating which can be considered the coating on substrate 702 that the electrodes are placed on top of which reads on “partially embedded,” in through broadest reasonable interpretation, or can read on 707 which is an electrical double layer of ions which can also be considered a coating (See Figure 7, paragraph 0147, 0126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to embed the electrodes as is done in MACKAY in the devices of LIN and DUSTIN due to the advantage this gives the device for a reaction or detection to occur between the electrodes as is done in MACAKAY to determine the presence of analyte or target (MACKAY, paragraph 0126).
With respect to Claim 13, LIN and DUSTIN teach of the claimed invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not teach of the claimed specifics of the electrode/coatings arrangement.
MACKAY teaches of the electrodes (704 & 706) both being “at least partially embedded,” in the coating which can be considered the coating on substrate 702 that the electrodes are placed on top of which reads on “partially embedded,” in through broadest reasonable interpretation, or can read on 707 which is an electrical double layer of ions which can also be considered a coating (See Figure 7, paragraph 0147, 0126). See reason for combination from Claim 12.
With respect to Claim 14, LIN and DUSTIN teach of the claimed invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not teach of the claimed specifics of the electrode/coatings arrangement.
MACKAY teaches that the first and second electrodes are each in the form of parallel lines or parallel shapes (see figure 3: two electrodes (302, 304) are each in the form of parallel shapes). GREENE also teaches of the electrodes being parallel shapes (Figure 4). Though MACKAY does not teach of the electrodes each being in concentric circles, however, it has been held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With respect to Claim 15, LIN and DUSTIN teach of the claimed invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not teach of the claimed specifics of the electrode/coatings arrangement.
MACKAY teaches that the first and second electrodes are each in the form of parallel lines or parallel shapes (see figure 3: two electrodes (302, 304) are each in the form of parallel shapes). See reason for combination from Claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new grounds of rejection is made due to amendments dated 11/11/2025, which change the scope of the claims to a scope which is different than any combination which was claimed in the previous set of claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA M FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4344. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30 MT Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached on 571-270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA M FRITCHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758